Oh really? So the Oregonian's sports reporters are just sitting around making up stories that they think Blazer fans want to hear? Yeah, right. I'm sure their stories are based on conversations with GMs, coaches, and various league sources, just as most sports stories of this kind are. Until you are actually a reporter for the Oregonian, your speculation about their motives is just as suspect as you think theirs are."The O's daily headline speculation of Sheed being traded doesn't make it any closer to happening. Thats just the story that they feel is the most compelling, and will sell the most papers to the rabid and frustrated fanbase."
What has the Oregonian reported that's been false? If they did make any mistakes, how was it malicious or irresponsible? The fact is, a home town paper should be the FIRST to reveal any wrongdoing by a player or an organization, since they are closer to the story than, say, a paper on the other side of the country. If a hometown paper is ignoring the turmoil on a team (and the Blazers have had loads of it), they aren't doing their job."They have been a major source for the national rumormongering and smears on stuff that hasn't happened for years now."
Of course not. No one on this board thinks Nash should make a trade that doesn't improve the team. That's a given."Just because their rumors are being reported nationally, I see no reason for Nash to deal Wallace (or anyone) unless a deal comes along that improves the team."
My specualtions on their motives is backed up by years of rumors not coming to fruition. It's exactly like the famous Nick Nolte Bluechips line about sleeping with sheep. I don't know if you've noticed TH, but they've had Wallace about to be traded for years now. The O's Blazer beat writer JQuick openly fans the trade winds with digs and speculations on Wallace's Blazer future in nearly every article he writes. The G. Arnold exploitation article this year omitted what Wallace was addressing/responding to (strait to HS players) and ran his quotes arranged just so to create maximum shock value for it's readers. When other papers report on the O's speculations, the O's response is to report that trade rumors are "heating up" or "continue to swirl nationally", even though they started the rumors in the first place. Based on interviews that I've heard with various GM's over the years, they pretty much never tip their cards, and only make vague references to what might happen.Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
Oh really? So the Oregonian's sports reporters are just sitting around making up stories that they think Blazer fans want to hear? Yeah, right. I'm sure their stories are based on conversations with GMs, coaches, and various league sources, just as most sports stories of this kind are. Until you are actually a reporter for the Oregonian, your speculation about their motives is just as suspect as you think theirs are.
A bit off-topic, but related to this point. I've been working on a screenplay and reading up on various aspects of the process, many of which are recommendations and guidelines. However, one is an adamant rule: When covering something factual, do not be constrained by the facts. Use the facts as a framework to tell your story, otherwise it will not be compelling.My own involvement with the media on a couple of occations, directly demonstrated how unimportant facts are compared to the story.
Your generalizations and overstatements are just as bad as anything you are complaining about. I've been reading the Oregonian for years, and Wallace has NOT been a constant source of trade rumors. Only 3 years ago he had an outstanding playoff series against the Lakers, and was generally regarded as one of the brightest young power forwards in the league. Portland had no interest in trading him, and no one thought Portland wanted to."I don't know if you've noticed TH, but [the Oregonian] has had Wallace about to be traded for years now."
I'm afraid it's you who are naive. GMs talk to reporters all the time. Often it's a GM who was involved in trade talks, then backed out for some reason. Peter Vecsey calls him up, asks if he knows whether a certain player is being shopped around, and the anonymous GM denies or confirms it, often throwing in a juicy quote to boot. Usually these sources are referred to as "One Western Conference GM . . . " or "an unnamed league official . . . " Aren't you aware of this well-established practice? You should be, for one who claims to be so savvy about the NBA."You don't really believe that GMs tell reporters (or Pete Vescey's league sources) about what deals they are trying to make do you? That strikes me as incredibly naive from someone who lives in the shadow of the incredibly tabloid NY media."
Again, you are showing your ignorance about how these things work. MANY MANY trade scenarious are discussed all the time by NBA General Managers. Most of them never happen, for one reason or another, but that doesn't mean they weren't discussed. Reporters often learn about these trade conversations after the fact, and then rush them into print. For the unknowing fan, it feels like fresh news. For the GMs who have already abandoned the trade, it's of course old news."When was the last time a major deal happened that was openly speculated beforehand? Did you hear about the Marbury deal before it went down? Or the Antoine Walker deal? Or the Jamison deal?"
Again, you are oversimplifying. Of course newspapers are in business to make money. But they make money by reporting the news. If they stop doing that, if they only publish rumors and falsehood, they quickly go out of business (unless they are the National Inquirer)."The purpose of newspapers is not about about reporting the news. Like every other business, it's about making money."
blah blah blah... perhaps you didn't notice it when I stated "That strikes me as incredibly naive" but there is a big difference between saying that someone is exhibiting a behaviour and saying someone is naive and ignorant. Clean up your insults and I'll give you a response. This isn't O-live.Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
I'm afraid it's you who are naive.... Again, you are showing your ignorance...
That's not a good feeling. I've had it happen before myself...went out in the morning to go to work, and what do you know, my car is gone. It was never found...probably chopped to pieces and shipped to Mexico for all I know.Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
All I am is incredibly pissed right now as my car was just stolen. I'm off on my bike to the police.
You're priceless. You start the insults, and then you pretend that you weren't insulting me. Clean up your original posts, and I won't have to respond in kind."Perhaps you didn't notice it when I stated "That strikes me as incredibly naive" but there is a big difference between saying that someone is exhibiting a behaviour and saying someone is naive and ignorant. Clean up your insults and I'll give you a response."
Actually, you don't have a story without facts. The challenge is getting from facts to story, and often that can be a difficult task under deadline. Often, there are corroborating or conflicting facts that are neither buried nor ignored - they simply aren't discovered until it's too late to print them. And then, the aegis is on the reporter to mention those facts at the next opportunity (and that's subjective - it doesn't have to appear right away).My own involvement with the media on a couple of occations, directly demonstrated how unimportant facts are compared to the story. If facts are out there that disprove the story, the writer still has a deadline, and those facts are ignored or at least buried for days/weeks.